This is a horrible idea. Particularly for a politics "Q&A" site.
It is appropriate to begin this answer by quoting Noam Chomsky
Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was
Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor
of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise,
you’re not in favor of free speech.
Banning users for posting their political perspective does not delete the political perspective.
Users should set aside their emotional response to questions and answers. Else it is not possible to ever get to the root interests of the individual who posts content that you might not agree with, like or makes you emotional.
Taken to the extreme, all quotes of the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, would be banned from being posted at Politics SE, given the pattern of white supremacist content published by the President of the United States demonstrated by content at the accepted answer to this question What national interest does the U.S. have in “the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations”?, in pertinent part
It depends who you ask. CNN commented on the White angle:
Some people who might share his concern are US voters who still think
Trump was unfairly criticized for his openness to white supremacists
marching on Charlottesville, or his closure of US borders to refugees
from mostly non-white countries he's referred to as shitholes? Don't
misunderstand; this tweet does not seem like an intentional plea for
votes. But it is certainly another glaring example of Trump being very
literally and specifically concerned about white people. And those
concerns are an important part of his political power. [...]
We've seen the President show understanding for white supremacist
marchers. We've seen him call Mexicans rapists. We've seen him pine
for more immigrants from mostly-white European countries, like Norway.
We've seen him refer to mostly Latino gang members as "animals." We've
seen him show surprise that a Latino ICE agent could speak English.
We've seen him say a Latino judge would obviously be biased against
him. We've seen him show a propensity to say African-American athletes
and lawmakers aren't smart. We've seen him say black athletes kneeling
during the National Anthem should be kicked out of the country. This
week we've seen him politicize the murder of an Iowa college student,
allegedly by an man who officials say came to the US illegally. His
concern for white farmers in South Africa is yet another example of
Trump's version of identity politics.
You have voted to close this user's questions on several occasions, including:
which, this user could conclude, is a trait of a white supremacist who simply is incapable of understanding political perspectives that are either not their own, or not based on a white supremacist premise. The fact that the present question attempts to recruit users into a cabal which hunts down and bans users does not alter the fact that the OP of this question could also be a promoter of racist activities.
At least the user mentioned at the OP is direct about their political stance, as opposed to wearing a sheet, and not disclosing their political views, as is one of the characteristics of the "invisible empire".
The historical record proves that United States was formed as a white supremacist nation-state. Is the next step to ban all mentions of documents produced by the United States, including all statements made by its officials?
One option for users who cannot help but become agitated or emotional when viewing what they perceive as "racist" content is to move on to another question or answer, instead of staring at the content that you do not like or gets you emotional.
Native Americans, Africans, Chinese and other populations have to deal with white-centric propaganda in the U.S. every day. It is not possible to simply press "delete" and voila, all of that content vanishes.
There is a contentious historical topic which perhaps cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of either side of the question, that is, were the Ancient Egyptians "black" or "white". To address that issue, one has to perform study across centuries of material. If the researcher gets emotional as to content that they encounter, it could easily become too much to bear psychologically.
If an individual is truly concerned with "racism", the most effective action that one can take is to not self-identify with any fictitious "race". That includes in private activity and when the Government asks what "race" you self-identify with on the Census form. For example, Theodore Allen, author of The Invention of the White Race, stated
If I must to be categorized demographically, I am a European American,
more particularly an anglo-american. But I am NOT white. I resigned
from the white race some log time ago.
Starting a crusade to ban users and delete content is not the answer to being agitated or emotional about content. Neither side will ever get to the source of the others' grievances after the blustering.
Do not have to agree with the user mentioned at the OP to still defend their right to their own political perspective, and to vehemently contest the notion that deleting political content on a site purported to be about politics is in any way anything other than an emotional response - not a political analysis of the material.
Also, it is important to disambiguate "promote" from a user simply posting their own political perspective.
Do not mistake disagreement for argument. No one is obliged to accept another persons' political argument. Nor should an individual be disillusioned about the veracity of their political argument being sufficient to convince another individual to "cross the isle" to their view. If it was possible to convince other people of ones' political views simply based on facts, all users who read the question Is "race" a political construct? would have to conclude that "race" is a political construct created relatively recently, by white supremacists, for white supremacists; and that whenever an individual self-identifies with any "race" they support the global government of white supremacy. Though it is not that simple. People have been indoctrinated to believe in both "race" and "religion".
Therefor, the solution is an individual choice. To reduce the impact of "racism", the individual must address their own self-identification in every human activity.
No actual problem statement is presented at the question.
Banning users from posting content is not a solution to a question that presents no clear problem statement other than OP does not like the content posted by other users, therefore those users who post content that they do not like should be banned.
Take the time to get to the root cause of their grievances. They could simply be insecure personally, have issues with their class, or have been educated by the United States school systems. For example, many have heard of the story of George Washington not "telling a lie" relevant to a "cherry tree"; where that "cherry tree" actually represents the flag of Morocco, the first nation to recognize the fledgling United States.
To confront "racism" one has to confront "racists" and institutional racism which is practiced by Stack Exchange itself - not attempt to "wish them to the cornfield".
